The Royal Mail sent people to prison because they believed their (human programmed) computer systems over the testimony & impeccable work record of good people.
The phrase ‘computers do not make mistakes’ is a misconception - they are vulnerable to electrical interference, for one, which can cause them to produce erroneous results.
This case is now an obvious example of system failure due to the impossibly high number of hours recorded in a category which is non-adjustable by the end user.
However it should be taken as evidence that it is possible for a tachograph to register a more plausible offence in error.
Therefore when someone pleads their absolute innocence against an offence recorded by computer generated evidence it should be a requirement in law to have the computer generated data backed up by corroborating evidence.
Due to the OP’s quality of testimony, photographic evidence & the constructive debate I suggest this thread be kept in memory by anyone put in the situation of having to defend their testimony against that of a machine in future.
For example, 30 minutes recorded over a driving limit is difficult to prove as a recording equipment fault, but showing a more obvious system failure should help an honest defence by proving the fallibility of these systems.
ScaniaUltimate:
The Royal Mail sent people to prison because they believed their (human programmed) computer systems over the testimony & impeccable work record of good people.
The phrase ‘computers do not make mistakes’ is a misconception - they are vulnerable to electrical interference, for one, which can cause them to produce erroneous results.
This case is now an obvious example of system failure due to the impossibly high number of hours recorded in a category which is non-adjustable by the end user.
However it should be taken as evidence that it is possible for a tachograph to register a more plausible offence in error.
Therefore when someone pleads their absolute innocence against an offence recorded by computer generated evidence it should be a requirement in law to have the computer generated data backed up by corroborating evidence.
Due to the OP’s quality of testimony, photographic evidence & the constructive debate I suggest this thread be kept in memory by anyone put in the situation of having to defend their testimony against that of a machine in future.
For example, 30 minutes recorded over a driving limit is difficult to prove as a recording equipment fault, but showing a more obvious system failure should help an honest defence by proving the fallibility of these systems.
What a load of twaddle. In this case “the system” has, without human intervention, acknowledged that a fault has occurred and also identified what that fault was (and when it occurred), thus flagging up any potential “infringement” as erroneous.
The Post Office miscarriage of justice is documented, and is covered by BBC radio here for those who want to listen on the road rather than read.
bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m000jf7j
It`s a dozen short pieces, and the recap every episode is annoying, but easily skipped past. Good listen none the less.